Once the great white hope of the Democrats and having relegated himself to great white whale, Teddy is now the designated doofus for John Kerry, assigned to campaign for him in places where Monsieur Kerry can't, won't or shouldn't go.

The lot of a Democratic doofus is suddenly not a happy one. Only yesterday he could lapse easily into a lament for "the jobless economic recovery," the sad plight of the working man in East Gondola, the unemployed working mother in West Humperdink and the millions who go to bed hungry. "Jobless recovery" was the mantra that Democrats everywhere lived by. Life was about to be good, very good.

But then came the blowout job numbers. The "bad" news released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes mourning for the recovery as something irrelevant and relegates the mantra to the trash. Not only that, as soon as those millions give up the Atkins diet to enjoy a crust of good hot bread, they can go to bed satisfied.

Teddy went off to the Brookings Institution yesterday to sing sad songs among the choir, deploring how George W. Bush has cut unemployment benefits, failed to pay for schools for the tykes, tots and teenagers and, worst of all, is about to spend $134 billion more than expected on a prescription-drug plan for the elderly that Teddy himself helped put together.

"This president," he said, "has created the largest credibility gap since ..." He hesitated ever so slightly here, as if he was trying to decide whether to make the comparison to either Hitler or Attila the Hun. Then the phantom light bulb flashed on over his imaginary head. "... since Richard Nixon. He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people."

You can't help but feel a twinge of sympathy for the doofuses, who all winter had been getting a little help from their friends in the elite media in search of bits and pieces of bad news to produce an unvarying tone of gloomy mood music to go with a manufactured landscape of deep shade and dark shadow. Why wouldn't the public-opinion polls suggest that half the American public think the country is mired in recession?

The purveyors of melancholy certainly know better. The recession that began in the late months of the second Clinton administration actually ended just after September 11, and by the end of 2003, the economy was booming at a rate of more than 6 percent annually. You have to go back to the Reagan years to find numbers like that. The Club for Growth researched the so-called "misery index," determined by adding the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, to calculate a figure for the past six presidential election years.

Jimmy Carter, to no one's surprise, set a misery standard that is likely to stand until the Rockies crumble, Gibraltar falls and the Chicago Cubs win the National League pennant. The misery index stood at 20.6 percent in March 1980, which was all Ronald Reagan needed to send Mr. Jimmy home to his peanut patch. An unfavorable misery index preceded the defeat of Gerald Ford (13.5 percent) and George H.W. Bush (10.5 percent) as well.

But here's the surprise: The misery index for George W.'s administration is lowest of all six of those worthies. George W. inherited the Clinton misery index of 8.4 percent and has shaved it (so far) to 7.7 percent. You just wouldn't know it from the coverage of the economy. The Wall Street Journal calls it "the Rodney Dangerfield recovery" because, as Rodney might say, "it don't get no respect."

But that's only among the doofuses and the media elites. What has actually happened is that the economic markers have surpassed those set during the second Clinton term, which usually is presented as the greatest four years in the history of the republic. The stock markets, which went south with the pricking of the dot.com boom, have grown by a little more than a third since the peak set in 2000 and, taken together with surging home prices, have set a record for family net worth. The stunning jobs growth in March marks the seventh consecutive month of jobs gains, with 61 percent of American factories showing payroll expansion. This, too, is the highest percentage since July 2000.

Teddy had to abandon the mantra of "jobless recovery" in his remarks yesterday and lapsed into warmed-over antiwar jive talk from the Vietnam era. Soup as thin as that cries for a lot of strong drink.

-Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Washington Times.

EricaLubarsky

04-06-2004, 03:06 AM

not really related to the article but the source: Washington Times is owned by Reverend Sum Yung Moon, the old cult leader who had all those mass weddings. Until he befriended Reagan he was just a cult icon and now he owns a handful of newspapers.

Evilmav2

04-06-2004, 03:14 AM

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols2/pruden.new.jpg
Yeah, but Wes Pruden is a pretty well respected columnist and editor who has a long track record of producing good commentary over at the Times, and the WT also features liberal columnists on their staff.

Besides all that, I posted this column partially because I just enjoyed it's title...

EricaLubarsky

04-06-2004, 03:20 AM

I wasnt trying to undermine the credibility, I just thought it was funny and it was a tidbit I had just learned. There's no reason to think that Moon's papers are any less credible than Pulitzer's

OutletPass

04-06-2004, 03:23 AM

Funny...for a guy that can go left or right into the paint....
My buddy Evil of Indiana only seems to be able to go the right on the forum.

Put up that Lefty, Buddy !!!

Mavdog

04-06-2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by: Evilmav2
Yeah, but Wes Pruden is a pretty well respected columnist and editor who has a long track record of producing good commentary over at the Times, and the WT also features liberal columnists on their staff.

Besides all that, I posted this column partially because I just enjoyed it's title...

I'm not seeing "good commentary" in using cliches such as "Great White whale", "doofuses", conjecturing that Teddy was making his speech up on the podium when Wes thought he was "trying to decide whether to make the comparison to either Hitler or Attila the Hun".

I would have used a word different than doofus when describing the most immoral politician ever.

Mavdog

04-06-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by: Drbio
hahaha.....

I would have used a word different than doofus when describing the most immoral politician ever.

You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral, Adam Clayton Powell as well. The list is full of many more who betrayed the public trust.

Evilmav2

04-06-2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: Drbio
hahaha.....

I would have used a word different than doofus when describing the most immoral politician ever.

You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/kennedy/stories/tragic.kennedys/chappaquiddick.jpg
I don't know if Teddy is the most immoral politician ever, but I will say that some of your above judgement should be balanced by Kennedy's purported involvement in the Chappaquiddick Bridge cover-up back in 1969.

The young Ted's aide (mistress) Mary Jo Kopechne died when he drunkenly careened off of that bridge, and he is pretty darned lucky that his name and powerful familial connections got the whole incident hushed up and swept under the carpet. Thirty years ago, Kennedy dodged a lock-solid manslaughter beef, and since then, his entire Senatorial career has lived on borrowed time that might have been more justly spent in a penitentiary.

madape

04-06-2004, 12:08 PM

hahah. Those Kennedys don't know how to hold their liquor.

He's another great story about the distinguished gentleman from Boston from Edward Klein's book "The Kennedy Curse"

Because few people had seen the Kennedy compound from the inside, the house had acquired a certain mysterious allure, and men in the family often exploited this attraction during the annual Easter hunt for women. The promise of 'a quiet drink at the house' was a surefire technique for luring women back to the compound for sex."

"Sex itself was never the primary purpose of these evenings; it was an opportunity for the Kennedys to put on a show of manly swagger in front of one another and to demonstrate that women were discardable objects."

"The Kennedys behaved as though they were invulnerable and had nothing to fear. Palm Beach was their seraglio, a place of licentious pleasure. It was there that they could drink themselves into a state of drunken senselessness and turn sex into a power game of seduction, manipulation, and control."

"Perhaps [Ted] was hoping that his young son and nephew could help a drunken, grossly overweight, middle-aged man get lucky again that night."

As it turned out, the two younger Kennedys each brought a woman back to the compound late that night, which happened to be Good Friday. Willy took his companion, Patty Bowman, to the beach just outside. There, according to Bowman, he raped her. What's more, she told a police detective that the senator must have known what was going on.

Klein describes the conversation: "'When [Willy and I] went to the beach, [Ted] was there, and I was screaming, No! and Stop, and I remember thinking, 'Ted Kennedy is here. Why doesn't he come down and stop this man?''"

If Ted Kennedy didn't hear Bowman, perhaps it's because he had become Peeping Ted. His son was in his bedroom with Michele Cassone. At the trial, Cassone spoke about what happened: "Patrick and I were ... making out, kissing. ... About ten minutes at the most later, the senator emerged through the door from inside the house ... and at this time he only has on a button-down oxford shirt. He has taken his slacks off. I didn't see if he had any Jockeys or boxers on [because the shirt] came halfway down the thighs. He was standing there, wobbling, and had no pants on. ... And I was just really freaked out."

Around this time, Bowman says she escaped from the clutches of Smith. She ran back into the house, hid, and then called friends on a cordless phone. They came and picked her up. Then Bowman reported what happened to the police.

Klein describes what happened next: "Teddy appeared to get himself tangled in a web of lies and contradictions." Many of his statements didn't seem to jibe with what others were saying about that night at the compound. "What's more, Teddy stonewalled the police and, at times, interfered with their investigation." When the police came to the compound on Easter Sunday, for instance, one of the senator's henchmen told them that Ted and Willy weren't there — even though they really were. Later on, the Kennedys leaked unflattering information about Bowman to the press, even though liberals aren't supposed to "blame the victim." NBC and the New York Times even used her name, despite Florida's rape-shield law.

Willy, of course, was eventually acquitted — rape convictions can be difficult to secure, especially when one of America's most powerful families has a vested interest in protecting their members. Yet it's impossible to read Klein's account and not think something awful happened that night — and that Ted Kennedy, that hero of Chappaquiddick, was a party to it.

Keep it in mind the next time Kennedy take to the floor of the Senate for a lecture on social justice.

Apparently, in addition to getting drunk and drowning girls in rivers, the senator also likes to get drunk, take his pants off, and watch his sons rape people. I'm glad he's still around to tell us about credibility.

Mavdog

04-06-2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: Drbio
hahaha.....

I would have used a word different than doofus when describing the most immoral politician ever.

You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral

I don't know if Teddy is the most immoral politician ever, but I will say that some of your above judgement should be balanced by Kennedy's purported involvement in the Chappaquiddick Bridge cover-up back in 1969.

The young Ted's aide (mistress) Mary Jo Kopechne died when he drunkenly careened off of that bridge, and he is pretty darned lucky that his name and powerful familial connections got the whole incident hushed up and swept under the carpet. Thirty years ago, Kennedy dodged a lock-solid manslaughter beef, and since then, his entire Senatorial career has lived on borrowed time that might have been more justly spent in a penitentiary.

Everyone knows about Chappaquiddick. Kennedy was wrong to have driven while under the influence, and he was wrong to leave the scene. These are actions that shouldn't be the rationale for "The most immoral politician ever", as just this month a distinguished US representitive from Dakota was found guilty of a similar offense. Hence "The most.." is not applicable if that is the basis.

Drbio

04-06-2004, 12:24 PM

My bad...I should have posted most "CRIMINAL" politician ever then.....i/expressions/rolleye.gif

nope, not even close. Most likely to be intoxicated, currently one of the most obese perhaps, even most eliteist maybe, but not most immoral IMHO.

madape

04-06-2004, 12:54 PM

Let's not forget about our other favorite immoral liberal democrat - you know, the one who banged interns in the oval office and gave presidential pardons to terrorists and murderers in order to win votes for his wife.

Mavdog

04-06-2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by: madape
Let's not forget about our other favorite immoral liberal democrat - you know, the one who banged interns in the oval office and gave presidential pardons to terrorists and murderers in order to win votes for his wife.

and what "terrorists and murderers" would that be?

besides, they didn't actually "bang" in the WH (depending on your definition of "bang" of course...i/expressions/lips.gif

madape

04-06-2004, 01:20 PM

The 16 Puerto Rican terrorists that committed over 170 bombings in the US during the 1970s. Many suspect that he did it to win support from the NYC Puerto Rican population in order to secure a senate seat for his wife.

Mavdog

04-06-2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by: madape
The 16 Puerto Rican terrorists that committed over 170 bombings in the US during the 1970s. Many suspect that he did it to win support from the NYC Puerto Rican population in order to secure a senate seat for his wife.

None of these who received clemency were convicted of any bombings or murders BTW.

MavKikiNYC

04-06-2004, 01:52 PM

Apropos of Ted the Boozer...

This thread reminds me of a story an acquaintance of mine tells about her stint as concierge in a Boston hotel back in the late 1970s/early 80s.

She got a call one night around 2AM from some flunkie in Senator Ted's suite, demanding that a couple of bottles of scotch be sent up. As there was some sort of state or local ordinance against delivering alcohol at that hour, she politely replied that the hotel would not be able to comply with the request for a few hours, but that it could be delivered with his morning coffee.

A few minutes later, Senator Boozer himself gets on the line yelling, asking if she knew who he was, and demanding that the scotch be sent up forthwith.

She responded that she was aware of who he was, and that because he was a Senator, she was surprised that he didn't know that it would be in violation of the law for her to send scotch to his room at that hour, and hung up.

Undeterred, Senator Boozer, exercising his droit de senateur, called someone else on the hotel staff and got his nightcap.

Laws, neither big nor small, don't apply to Kennedys.

Smiles

04-06-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Apropos of Ted the Boozer...

This thread reminds me of a story an acquaintance of mine tells about her stint as concierge in a Boston hotel back in the late 1970s/early 80s.

She got a call one night around 2AM from some flunkie in Senator Ted's suite, demanding that a couple of bottles of scotch be sent up. As there was some sort of state or local ordinance against delivering alcohol at that hour, she politely replied that the hotel would not be able to comply with the request for a few hours, but that it could be delivered with his morning coffee.

A few minutes later, Senator Boozer himself gets on the line yelling, asking if she knew who he was, and demanding that the scotch be sent up forthwith.

She responded that she was aware of who he was, and that because he was a Senator, she was surprised that he didn't know that it would be in violation of the law for her to send scotch to his room at that hour, and hung up.

Undeterred, Senator Boozer, exercising his droit de senateur, called someone else on the hotel staff and got his nightcap.

This thread reminds me of a story an acquaintance of mine tells about her stint as concierge in a Boston hotel back in the late 1970s/early 80s.

She got a call one night around 2AM from some flunkie in Senator Ted's suite, demanding that a couple of bottles of scotch be sent up. As there was some sort of state or local ordinance against delivering alcohol at that hour, she politely replied that the hotel would not be able to comply with the request for a few hours, but that it could be delivered with his morning coffee.

A few minutes later, Senator Boozer himself gets on the line yelling, asking if she knew who he was, and demanding that the scotch be sent up forthwith.

She responded that she was aware of who he was, and that because he was a Senator, she was surprised that he didn't know that it would be in violation of the law for her to send scotch to his room at that hour, and hung up.

Undeterred, Senator Boozer, exercising his droit de senateur, called someone else on the hotel staff and got his nightcap.

If you "read this entire thread" then you should have seen this "compelling argument":

"I'm not seeing "good commentary" in using cliches such as "Great White whale", "doofuses", conjecturing that Teddy was making his speech up on the podium when Wes thought he was "trying to decide whether to make the comparison to either Hitler or Attila the Hun".

Pruden can make his point without that sort of fiction."

With this "factual response":

"None of these who received clemency were convicted of any bombings or murders BTW. "

And this one that has both:

" You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral, Adam Clayton Powell as well. The list is full of many more who betrayed the public trust. "

As for Nixon, I can't name anyone he "kill[ed]". Is that the criteria?

kg_veteran

04-07-2004, 09:51 AM

If you "read this entire thread" then you should have seen this "compelling argument":

"I'm not seeing "good commentary" in using cliches such as "Great White whale", "doofuses", conjecturing that Teddy was making his speech up on the podium when Wes thought he was "trying to decide whether to make the comparison to either Hitler or Attila the Hun".

Pruden can make his point without that sort of fiction."

These comments have nothing to do with your position taken later in the thread that Nixon is the most "immoral" and "criminal" politician ever.

With this "factual response":

"None of these who received clemency were convicted of any bombings or murders BTW. "

Again, this has nothing to do with Nixon or Kennedy.

And this one that has both:

" You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral, Adam Clayton Powell as well. The list is full of many more who betrayed the public trust. "

Here, we have your conclusory opinion that Nixon was more immoral than Kennedy, unsupported by either facts or compelling argument. This is exactly what I was talking about.

As for Nixon, I can't name anyone he "kill[ed]". Is that the criteria?

Everyone can name someone that Kennedy killed. I suppose you believe it is "more criminal" and "more immoral" to be involved in a cover-up than it is to kill someone and THEN cover it up?

Mavdog

04-07-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
[quote]
If you "read this entire thread" then you should have seen this "compelling argument":

"I'm not seeing "good commentary" in using cliches such as "Great White whale", "doofuses", conjecturing that Teddy was making his speech up on the podium when Wes thought he was "trying to decide whether to make the comparison to either Hitler or Attila the Hun".

Pruden can make his point without that sort of fiction."

These comments have nothing to do with your position taken later in the thread that Nixon is the most "immoral" and "criminal" politician ever.

No, they are germaine to the point to which they were made, that is the all too easy sliming of Kennedy done by Pruden. I heard that part of the Kennedy speech on Limbaugh, and there was no discernable "pause" BTW. Odd that you would expect a post prior to the nixon reference to have something to do with nixon...

With this "factual response":

"None of these who received clemency were convicted of any bombings or murders BTW.

Again, this has nothing to do with Nixon or Kennedy.

Your not following this thread very well KG, that factual point was in regard to the post on Clinton. It is true and factual, isn't it?

And this one that has both:

" You're referring to Kennedy? Absolutely wrong....Nixon was much more immoral, Adam Clayton Powell as well. The list is full of many more who betrayed the public trust.

Here, we have your conclusory opinion that Nixon was more immoral than Kennedy, unsupported by either facts or compelling argument. This is exactly what I was talking about.

Actually it was illustrative of other politicians who were guilty of betraying the public truct, which is IMHO is "immoral", and in the case of ACPowell, more "criminal" as well. As far as providing either of these with "facts" if one doesn't know their history, I certainly can't spend the time informing.

As for Nixon, I can't name anyone he "kill[ed]". Is that the criteria?

Everyone can name someone that Kennedy killed. I suppose you believe it is "more criminal" and "more immoral" to be involved in a cover-up than it is to kill someone and THEN cover it up?

The point made was that Kennedy was "the most immoral", an absolute that by illustrating other "immoral" politicians is shown to be inaccurate. (Evilmav got that BTW). The second point was that Kennedy was also "criminal", which is totally inaccurate as he has never been found guilty of a crime, which of course AC Powell was. Both absolutes were incorrect.
kennedy likely was guilty of manslaughter, we will never know as there was no trial. Is he responsible for her death? Certainly, no doubt. Does that culpability make him the "most immoral...and criminal" politician ever? I don't agree, and the previous examples show why.

dude1394

04-07-2004, 08:49 PM

Kennedy dodges Questions on Delaying Judicial Nominee to Fix Decision. Hopefully this piece of junk will get indicted.

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) appeared flustered Wednesday when confronted with allegations that two of his former aides plotted to delay the confirmation of one of President Bush's judicial nominees solely to influence a high-profile affirmative action case.

The former Kennedy aides - Olati Johnson, his judiciary counsel, and Melody Barnes, his chief counsel - were responsible for an April 17, 2002, memo that recommended Kennedy delay the confirmation process of Julia Smith Gibbons to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a report released Tuesday by the Center for Individual Freedom.

Gibbons was eventually confirmed, but not until July 29, 2002, after the appeals court had already ruled on an affirmative action case involving law school students at the University of Michigan. The court issued its ruling May 14, 2002. That case and one involving undergraduate students at the University of Michigan were later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When CNSNews.com asked Kennedy about the allegations Wednesday, the senator stumbled over his words, shook his head and was quickly escorted from the room by his staff.

"No. I'm not gonna, uh, re, uh," Kennedy muttered.

He also wouldn't confirm or deny whether Johnson and Barnes were responsible for contents of the memo.

"No. No," Kennedy said as he scurried for the door.

The senator, who was holding a press conference on pension relief for small businesses, was also asked whether he would condemn the idea of delaying a judge for the sole reason of influencing a court case. Kennedy didn't respond.

The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) also had no luck getting Kennedy to comment for its report, said Jeffrey Mazzella, the group's executive director. Mazzella said Kennedy's latest response, or lack thereof, was troubling.

"He dodged the question. He was obviously rattled," Mazzella said. "When asked point-blank, he couldn't deny any wrongdoing, either by himself or by his staff. It just further enforces the need for a complete and full investigation into all the obvious ethical wrongdoing that took place here."

The CFIF report, which fingers Johnson as the author of the April 17, 2002, memo, raises several ethical questions because of Johnson's employment history.

Prior to joining Kennedy's office, Johnson was assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which was a defendant-intervenor in one of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. In that capacity, Johnson served as co-counsel.

According to the CFIF report, Johnson's former boss, Elaine R. Jones, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, made a telephone request to Kennedy's office asking that Gibbons' confirmation to the 6th Circuit be delayed in order to prevent Gibbons from voting on the affirmative action cases.

The April 17, 2002, memo, on which Barnes apparently concurred, was the byproduct of that conversation, according to the CFIF report.

The memo spells out the rationale for delaying Gibbons' confirmation: "The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."

But the memo also highlighted the ethical concerns that come with delaying a confirmation solely for the purpose of influencing a court decision.

"[Barnes] and I are a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case," Johnson wrote. "We are also aware that the 6th Circuit is in dire need of additional judges. Nevertheless we recommend that Gibbons be scheduled for a later hearing."

Mazzella said the revelation that two of Kennedy's closest advisers were involved should prompt an immediate Senate Ethics Committee investigation.

"Senator Kennedy's blustery stonewalling of reporters' legitimate questions about the unethical recommendations of his staff indicate that the only way answers are going to be forthcoming is through a Senate Ethics Committee or Justice Department investigation," Mazzella said.

Calls to Kennedy's press secretary, Jim Manley, as well as Johnson and Barnes weren't returned Wednesday. Mazzella said he provided each of them with an opportunity to react to his report, but he received no response.

Evilmav2

04-07-2004, 10:04 PM

http://www.ytedk.com/hearing.jpg

The second point was that Kennedy was also "criminal", which is totally inaccurate as he has never been found guilty of a crime

Actually, Kennedy did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and received a suspended sentence for the Chappaquiddic incident, albeit that ruling represented nothing more than a slap on the wrist for the Senator (he didn't even have to serve the mandatory 20 day jail sentence that he should have)...

The fact that Ted Kennedy drunkenly careened off of a bridge in his attempt to get away from a police officer who was trying to give him directions, then fled the scene of the crime, leaving a drowning Mary Jo Kopechne behind (forensic evidence and the testimony of the rescue diver indicate that she probably lived for 20 minutes to 2 hours after the car was submerged), and then proceeded to hide from the police for 9 hours while sobering up and trying to clean up evidence of the drinking party he had left prior to the accident should have netted him a much more severe punishment than he recieved.

In the words of George Killen, the State Police Detective-Lieutenant who directed the initial investigation of the accident scene, "Senator Kennedy killed that girl the same as if he put a gun to her head".

Kennedy may not be rotting in prison right now (It's good to have friends and protectors in high places), and he may not be the "most immoral" politician this country has ever seen, but in my opinion, the man is an absolutely corrupt, moral derelict; A craven and selfish, carousing drunk who let a girl die gasping and afraid in order to protect his own political ambitions and because of his own personal cowardice.

And when a man like Ted Kennedy feels fit to loudly and self-righteously condemn the policies of an American presidency that has freed millions from torture and despotic gangsterism, I would be remiss not to call that bloated degenerate a damned hypocrite.

kg_veteran

04-07-2004, 11:02 PM

Honestly, Evil, that was a brilliant post.

Mavdog - Stop trying to wiggle your way out of your own words. You're the one who said Nixon was the "most criminal"; you were the one who said he was "more immoral" than Kennedy. And so, in essence, what you're saying is that a man who killed a woman in a cowardly attempt to protect his own political aspirations is less immoral and less criminal than a man who lied and cheated to protect his own political aspirations.

Pardon me if I beg to differ.

Ted Kennedy is exactly what Doc said he is -- a worthless piece of immoral murderous shit. And if a columnist wants to make fun of him and call him names, well, he should just be happy that's the worst that's happening to him. By all rights he should be somebody's aging bitch in prison somewhere.

Mavdog

04-07-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Honestly, Evil, that was a brilliant post.

Mavdog - Stop trying to wiggle your way out of your own words. You're the one who said Nixon was the "most criminal"; you were the one who said he was "more immoral" than Kennedy. And so, in essence, what you're saying is that a man who killed a woman in a cowardly attempt to protect his own political aspirations is less immoral and less criminal than a man who lied and cheated to protect his own political aspirations.

Pardon me if I beg to differ.

Ted Kennedy is exactly what Doc said he is -- a worthless piece of immoral murderous shit. And if a columnist wants to make fun of him and call him names, well, he should just be happy that's the worst that's happening to him. By all rights he should be somebody's aging bitch in prison somewhere.

well I guess we have a difference of opinion. I see the attempt to pervert the executive office of this country, to discredit the presidency through committing burglary, wiretapping, extortion, witness tampering, tampering with evidence (among others), lying to the country over and over again as incredibly immoral, and yes more immoral and much more criminal than DUI, leaving the scene and manslaughter.

The good citizens of mass clearly don't agree with you as they have voted him back to the Senate 5 times since the accident.

This columnist wrote a piece of crap as if he had been drinking too long and had to file a story in a half hour.

Evilmav2

04-07-2004, 11:39 PM

witness tampering, tampering with evidence (among others), lying to the country

Well, not to quibble excessively, but Ted Kennedy and his supporters did all of this during the course of the Chappaquiddick Bridge cover up...

dude1394

04-07-2004, 11:47 PM

....witness tampering, tampering with evidence (among others), lying to the country over and over again.......

Durn I thought we were talking about the bloviator and not clintoon???

WASHINGTON -- If, as Senator Teddy Kennedy rumbled recently, Iraq is President George W. Bush's Vietnam, surely the silver-haired Senator is becoming Mr. Bush's Jane Fonda. Of course Teddy is not as svelte as Miss Fonda, for he has never been an adept of fad diets, and an aerobics regimen could impair his precarious health. Nonetheless, Teddy is becoming the Fonda of our time. Possibly he will fly off to Falluja to be photographed on a burned out Humvee or visit Najaf to confer with the scowling Muslim cleric, the Rev. Muqtada al-Sadr. Having become so historically-minded Teddy goes on to call President Bush our era's Richard Nixon.

Actually for this man to encourage Americans to reflect back on 1960s history is quite reckless given his blemished history. They might come across news reports of a senator leaving a girl to drown in his car while he slept off a drunk and later dialing up his high-powered advisers for urgent public relations counsel. They might also find stories of that same senator later boozing with his young nephews before their carousals ended in a rape charge. Other indelicacies have followed.......

The former wife of the fugitive financier controversially pardoned by President Clinton on his last day in office had donated $450,000 to his presidential library fund, according to reports in Washington. Citing "sources familiar with the contribution", the Washington Post said Denise Rich made three donations from July 1998 to May 2000, before she became active late last year in the successful lobbying campaign for Marc Rich. The pardon freed one of the world's richest men from prosecution on more than 50 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading with Iran. Her lawyer had told a house committee probing the pardon that Denise Rich donated an "enormous sum of money" to the fund. Reports of the donations have ranged from $400,000 to $1 million. The committee will issue subpoenas next week for donor lists for Mr Clinton's presidential library fund and for Denise Rich's bank records, a panel spokesman said on Friday. The panel is seeking immunity from prosecution for Denise Rich in return for her testimony.

Refused questions

Ms Rich, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party in recent years, refused to answer 14 written questions submitted to her by the committee, claiming her constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Clinton foundation attorney David Kendall said he would fight a subpoena for the library donor list. "Any demand for a list of our donors would be flagrantly violative of the First Amendment and we would resist it," Mr Kendall told the Wahington Post. The foundation hopes to raise $200 million to finance the construction of Mr Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Following the money

Republicans at Thursday's hearing called the pardon "sleazy" and questioned the influence of Denise Rich's donations on Mr Clinton's decision. They also noted that Ms Rich was a major contributor to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign. The bank records, while helping determine the amount of the library donations, could also help investigators determine whether any of the funds originated with Marc Rich. Marc Rich, who fled to exile in Switzerland 17 years ago, was pardoned on 20 January, the day Mr Clinton left office. Mr Clinton insisted on Tuesday that Mr Rich deserved the pardon. saying: "Once the facts are out there, people will understand what I did and why, even if they may not agree with it."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Mr Clinton's pardons next Wednesday.

Max Power

04-08-2004, 09:49 AM

In pardoning Rich, Clinton failed to follow the normal procedure of fully consulting with the Justice Department prior to granting a pardon. According to a Justice Department figure testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the department was not even informed of the impending pardon until shortly after midnight on January 20.

kg_veteran

04-08-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

witness tampering, tampering with evidence (among others), lying to the country

Well, not to quibble excessively, but Ted Kennedy and his supporters did all of this during the course of the Chappaquiddick Bridge cover up...

The former wife of the fugitive financier controversially pardoned by President Clinton on his last day in office had donated $450,000 to his presidential library fund, according to reports in Washington. Citing "sources familiar with the contribution", the Washington Post said Denise Rich made three donations from July 1998 to May 2000, before she became active late last year in the successful lobbying campaign for Marc Rich. The pardon freed one of the world's richest men from prosecution on more than 50 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading with Iran. Her lawyer had told a house committee probing the pardon that Denise Rich donated an "enormous sum of money" to the fund. Reports of the donations have ranged from $400,000 to $1 million. The committee will issue subpoenas next week for donor lists for Mr Clinton's presidential library fund and for Denise Rich's bank records, a panel spokesman said on Friday. The panel is seeking immunity from prosecution for Denise Rich in return for her testimony.

Refused questions

Ms Rich, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party in recent years, refused to answer 14 written questions submitted to her by the committee, claiming her constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Clinton foundation attorney David Kendall said he would fight a subpoena for the library donor list. "Any demand for a list of our donors would be flagrantly violative of the First Amendment and we would resist it," Mr Kendall told the Wahington Post. The foundation hopes to raise $200 million to finance the construction of Mr Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Following the money

Republicans at Thursday's hearing called the pardon "sleazy" and questioned the influence of Denise Rich's donations on Mr Clinton's decision. They also noted that Ms Rich was a major contributor to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign. The bank records, while helping determine the amount of the library donations, could also help investigators determine whether any of the funds originated with Marc Rich. Marc Rich, who fled to exile in Switzerland 17 years ago, was pardoned on 20 January, the day Mr Clinton left office. Mr Clinton insisted on Tuesday that Mr Rich deserved the pardon. saying: "Once the facts are out there, people will understand what I did and why, even if they may not agree with it."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Mr Clinton's pardons next Wednesday.

This was a very poor decision by Clinton, he appears to have sold a pardon.

dude1394

04-08-2004, 03:05 PM

Inspiring Speech by John McCain yesterday after Kennedy's Rant. Quite inspiring, check out the last paragraph.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the text of a speech made by Arizona Republican senator John McCain on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, April 7, 2004.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I take the floor to respond to comments made by Senator Byrd, but also to general comments that have been made over the last 48 hours as we all recognize this is a very difficult time for us in Iraq.

I do not have to review with any of my colleagues the events of the last few days and the tragedies in the loss of these brave young Americans who are fighting and sacrificing for someone else's freedom.

I have also heard a number of observers, including some Senators, who have compared events in Iraq to what we went through in Vietnam. I happen to know something about Vietnam, and I know we do not face another Vietnam. I need not go into the long history of our involvement in that nation, the reasons for our failure, but the realities on the ground in Iraq are clear.

There is no superpower that is backing these minority of Shias and Sunnis who are seeking to gain political power through the use of a gun, and there is no comparison as far as the sanctuary which this enemy has. We grant them no sanctuary.

Some have stated we are on the defensive. I would argue that, as we speak, in Fallajuh and other places, our Marines and Army are on the offensive, dedicated to the proposition that no group, no matter what their ethnic or religious beliefs are, will take control of Iraq.

Control of Iraq will be the result of a democratic process and a representative one, part of which is the turning over of power to the Iraqi people on June 30.

We have had this argument back and forth: Should we turn over power of the government to the Iraqis on June 30? I say yes, and I say yes recognizing two realities. One is that it will be a difficult process, and we have a lot more planning to do between now and June 30 for that transition to take place. The other reality, as far as the security situation is concerned, is that America's military will be there in force for a significant period of time, and the American people need to be told that.

This is a long, tough, hard struggle. It is hard for countries to adopt democracies. It is incredibly difficult when they have never known democracy and freedom in the past. A little later, I want to talk a little bit more about what happens if we fail, as well as what happens if we succeed in Iraq.

Again, in Vietnam there was superpower support. There were arms and political support. We did not have a clear plan for victory, and dare I mention that in Vietnam many times we had more casualties in a week, sometimes less than a week, than we have had in a year in Iraq.

To make these comparisons with the Tet offensive or the entire Vietnam conflict is not only uninformed but I think a bit dangerous because, of course, the specifics of our involvement in that conflict fade, as they should, in the memories of the American people.

What is happening in Iraq today is we have a Sunni insurgency that consists of ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. They obviously are the only people who were better off during Saddam Hussein's regime because they were the favored minority that were of the same religion as Saddam. They realize they will never run Iraq again because they are in the minority. Because they are in the majority, the Shia will probably dominate that government, but we also have a constitution in Iraq that guarantees the rights of minorities. We are there and a new government will be there to guarantee those same rights.

The realities are the Sunni minority will never control Iraq again. We have a small minority of Shias who are trying to grab some political power before the July 1 transition. There is very little doubt that Sadr's followers are in a distinct minority and the majority of Shias still owe allegiance and have allegiance to the Ayatollah Sistani, who has argued, perhaps not forcefully enough, that we do not have the kind of armed conflict that we are seeing today.

Is this a difficult political problem? Yes. Is it the time to panic, to cut and run? Absolutely not. The vast majority of Iraqi people are glad we are there and they state unequivocally that they are better off than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Lest time dim our memory, let us remember the mass graves that we discovered, the 8- and 9-year-old boys coming out of prison in Baghdad, the despotic, incredibly cruel practices of his two sons. The people of Iraq and America and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

Now, we can argue about intelligence; we can argue about weapons of mass destruction. That is why we have commissions. That is why tomorrow, in an almost unprecedented fashion, the National Security Adviser to the President will testify before the 9/11 Commission. I am confident she will perform admirably because she is an incredibly intelligent and capable individual.

The fact is, to argue that we should have left Iraq under the rule of this incredibly cruel person who used weapons of mass destruction, who had weapons of mass destruction in 1991, was continuing to attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and if in power would continue to try to acquire those weapons, certainly flies in the face of the facts about Saddam Hussein's regime.

Senator Byrd says we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place and that we should not be there now. I respect the view. I strongly disagree with it, and I think the facts indicate that is not the case. We could argue for days about it, but right now at this moment we need to send a message not only to the Sunnis in Iraq and the minority of Shias in Iraq who are taking up arms and killing Americans that we are there to stay. We are there to stay and we will see it through. If we fail, if we cut and run, the results can be disastrous. Those results would be the fragmentation of Iraq, to start with, on ethnic and religious lines. The second result would be an unchecked hotbed of training ground and birthing of individuals who are committed to the destruction of the United States of America.

We will never solve the war on terror as long as there are millions of young men standing on street corners all over the Middle East with no hope, no job, no opportunities, no future. They are the breeding ground. They are the ones who are taken off the streets and taken into the madrasahs — funded by the Saudis, by the way — and taught to hate and kill, and who want to destroy America, the West, and all we believe in. Their hatred is not confined to the United States of America, as the citizens of Spain have found out, much to their dismay and tragedy.

What happens if we win? What happens if we see this thing through? It will be hard and it will be difficult and perhaps we need more troops. I have said for a long time that we needed more troops of certain types, but we have to see this thing through. And what will happen? What will happen is that we will affirm the profound and fundamental belief upon which this Nation was founded, that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and they are not just in the Western Hemisphere; they are not just in the United States of America; they are not just in Europe. The people in the Middle East have the same hopes, beliefs, and yearnings for freedom and democracy, and they have a right to determine their own future just as have our own citizens and citizens throughout the world.

When they achieve that — and it will be long and hard and difficult — it will send a message to every despotic regime, every religious extremist throughout the Middle East, their day is done because in a democratic, free, and open society the people want to live in peace with their neighbors and with the world.

So there is a lot at stake. I grieve every moment, as every American does, for the loss of these brave young Americans' lives. They have made a supreme sacrifice, and we will honor their memory, but at least their grieving families will know they sacrificed in the cause of freedom.

At this particular moment of crisis — and it is a crisis — I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to join together in this noble cause. Yes, we are free to criticize; yes, we are free to make recommendations and suggestions; but the awesome responsibility lies with all of us, led by the President of the United States, as we attempt to carry out what is the most noble act that no country in the world has ever done besides the United States of America, and that is to shed our most precious blood and expend our treasure in defense of someone else's freedom in the hope that they may enjoy the fruits of a free and open society in a democracy that is guaranteed to all men and women by our Creator.

I yield the floor.

madape

04-08-2004, 03:25 PM

If the terrorists didn't think that Kerry was such a puss, they wouldn't even be fighting back. He gives them hope.

"We cannot drive Bush out of Iraq. But perhaps we can drive Bush out of the White House" is the prevailing thought amongst our enemies right now. A victory for Kerry is a victory for terror. The bad-guys are rolling the dice on this one. They know that if Bush wins, it's all over for them.

Answer: not very. Fallujah is not the new Mogadishu, Muqtaba al-Sadr is not the new Ayatollah Khomeini and, despite what Ted Kennedy says, Iraq is not ''George Bush's Vietnam.'' Or even George Bush's Chappaquiddick.